Sehwag vs Smith

[Richard]

But equally, the fact that one can score 309* on a flat track against a decent bowling-attack doesn't say anything about one's ability under other circumstances.

Sehwag may be one of the best flat-track (or, more accurately, non-seaming-track) bullies ever seen. But the fact that he is doesn't matter in the slightest when it comes to tackling more challenging conditions.

The above also applies to Matthew Hayden, of course.

 

[Checkmate]

But equally, the fact that one can score 309* on a flat track against a decent bowling-attack doesn't say anything about one's ability under other circumstances.

Sehwag may be one of the best flat-track (or, more accurately, non-seaming-track) bullies ever seen. But the fact that he is doesn't matter in the slightest when it comes to tackling more challenging conditions.

The above also applies to Matthew Hayden, of course.

I don't think this is entirely relevant since Sehwag actually hasn't had too many chances to play on seaming tracks. About the only example of failure in a series I can come up with is the SA series in 06/07 but those two years also happen to coincide with his worst run of form. I would give him some more time and opportunities to perform in these "challenging conditions" before simply labeling him a FTB.

 

[silentstriker]

I don't think this is entirely relevant since Sehwag actually hasn't had too many chances to play on seaming tracks. About the only example of failure in a series I can come up with is the SA series in 06/07 but those two years also happen to coincide with his worst run of form. I would give him some more time and opportunities to perform in these "challenging conditions" before simply labeling him a FTB.

NZ Test series as well.

 

[Checkmate]

NZ Test series as well.

The entire Indian batting line-up bar maybe Dravid and Tendulkar collapsed in that series though. Still don't think that's enough to judge him.

 

[ret]

NZ Test series as well.

Dude, hardly anyone did well on those super green turf presented in that NZ series .... so whats your point in saying that he didn't perform when almost everyone struggled including the home team, iirc .... appears like a hypocritical point to me

 

[Nutter]

Sehwag for sure. Definitely has far more talent.

Smith is too on-side oriented and muscles the ball too much like Hayden - except Hayden does it better.

Mind you I'd have Smith in a flash in the New Zealand side.

 

[Richard]

I don't think this is entirely relevant since Sehwag actually hasn't had too many chances to play on seaming tracks. About the only example of failure in a series I can come up with is the SA series in 06/07 but those two years also happen to coincide with his worst run of form. I would give him some more time and opportunities to perform in these "challenging conditions" before simply labeling him a FTB.

I'm willing to say he hasn't faced challenging conditions - NZ aside - very often, but I don't feel he was out-of-form in SA at all, simply that he finally came-up against something he has never had the ability to resist. Easy to forget, too, but both his tours of Australia would have been mediocre to poor but for 2 dropped catches.

 

[ret]

I'm willing to say he hasn't faced challenging conditions - NZ aside - very often, but I don't feel he was out-of-form in SA at all, simply that he finally came-up against something he has never had the ability to resist. Easy to forget, too, but both his tours of Australia would have been mediocre to poor but for 2 dropped catches.

it appears as if you have the tendency to bring the same points again and again .... now can you prove that all Bradman's 100s were chance-less and that he never got any reprieve in his career. No, you can't .... chances or no chances, it doesn't take anything away from his career

And other batsman would have got chances in that series as well, why are you focused on Sehwag? if chances to other players don't mean a thing then why it should matter for Sehwag duh

 

[Richard]

Because the likes of Dravid, Tendulkar and Laxman had proven themselves not to be flat-track bullies before that first series.

 

[ret]

Because the likes of Dravid, Tendulkar and Laxman had proven themselves not to be flat-track bullies before that first series.

How does that relate to 'chances'? .... They would have got chances too

 

[Richard]

You said "surely Dravid and Tendulkar got let-offs too". Well yes, they did. But even if they hadn't, we'd have known they weren't flat-track bullies.

 

[ret]

You said "surely Dravid and Tendulkar got let-offs too". Well yes, they did. But even if they hadn't, we'd have known they weren't flat-track bullies.

How would you know that someone is not a flat track bully?

 

[Manee]

Let offs are often an intangible gauge of small technique facets. For example, one who is dropped more may simply hit it harder, so the fielder is less willing to get behind it and starts the delivery on the balls of his feet. Moreover, he may just provide more half chances, by hitting the ball in the air more often. More chances do mean more possible drops, simple maths.

Furthermore, one who gets more LBW let offs may have a longer stride, which is a result of good technique or may simply be taller, which is as God-given as fine hand-eye coordination.

Bolded the mays so I don't get the pedantic police nitpicking my post.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

..................and a chance dropped by Curtley Ambrose could have been three feet over Alvin kallicharran's head.

 

[Manee]

..................and a chance dropped by Curtley Ambrose could have been three feet over Alvin kallicharran's head.

That may be pushing it a bit.

 

[ret]

Anything in the striking range of Rhodes would be a chance .... Unless the ball is coming straight into the hands, it's not a chance in case of Munaf Patel

 

[Manee]

Anything in the striking range of Rhodes would be a chance .... Unless the ball is coming straight into the hands, it's not a chance in case of Munaf Patel

But if it does go to hand, it seems he always takes them.

 

[Mister Wright]

Sehwag. Hate Smith.

 

[ret]

On a serious note, I think its inappropriate to judge someone on mundane concepts like let-offs

Anybody who understands sports knows the let-offs are a part and parcel of the game .... There are other intangibles like a batsman being given a wrong decision, a nick or a close bat and pad given / not given by the umpires and so on .... If we are to consider 'let-offs' then why don't we consider the 'let-downs' like false decision going against the batsman

Does anyone remember one of the knock-out games in the soccer world cup between Australia and Italy? I though that the Australians were playing better football than the Italians in that game. In the dying mins of the game, Italy got a penalty and it scored and advanced to the next level. The replays showed that Australians were hard done by the decision. There was never a case for a penalty for Italy in the first place. But still Italy advanced and then went on to win the world cup. Now what if someone were to say that Italy only won coz it got a 'let-off' against Australia. It would be unfair to Italy to say that and would be an unsporting comment. That would be undermining Italy's achievement

 

[ret]

But if it does go to hand, it seems he always takes them.

Do you understand what is being implied here?

A shot thats reasonable close to Rhodes would be taken, while that may not be the case with Munaf .... It's not abt dropping the ball, it's abt catching

Now replace Munaf in Rhodes place, and everything that was being taken at that position by Rhodes would probably not be even a chance with Munaf

Same was implied earlier with the Ambrose and Kallicharan's example. A taller Ambrose would pull out a catch for e.g. at the boundary but if Kalli were there, it could go for a 6

Point: It's subjective